So down to the core issue that sparked this, the club/bmbc need to visit a few other grounds and learn best practice. Been to events with over twice the numbers at Oakwell and never any issues with safely getting car parks, coach parks and pedestrian walkways safe. Club really do make simple logistics look difficult for some bizarre reason. There are many solutions available with the access to Oakwell. A well planned strategy would avoid flare ups.
Isn't threatening to break someone's ******* nose verbal abuse with an added specific threat of bodily harm?
Just for the record.did you know theatening Behaviour carries a custodial sentence of 6 months, be warned all you naughty bbs'ers.
If I had been walling past a club employee with my young daughter and they used that language, I would have reported them. Nobody is defending the op rightly so, it's worrying people are quite prepared for club employees to adopt intimidating language towards customers.
Ok were all human, your working for peanuts, doing your job as instructed by your peers, an somebody gets in yer face an sez these naughty things, what would you do, my option would be to defuse the situation with a right uppercut an knock the naughty person right out. now Would that be out of order, or would i be acting within the law, self defence
Of course it's not the same thing. You could make an argument he committed common assault, she clearly didn't. Call in a bomb threat and then when you get arrested try telling the police that it doesn't matter because there was no bomb.
If someone threatens to break your nose and you perceive an immediate threat to yourself then I reckon it is arguably self defence. But just because you might be legally OK doesn't mean that's the right thing to do rather than de-escalate things.
I condemn the swearing by the employee completely. Bang out of order. Points to her being undertrained and lacking social maturity, the club should address this. Though to assert her saying ‘I don’t f***ing think so’ whilst replacing a cone which had incorrectly been moved as being ‘equally as bad’ as a threat to break her nose is measurably wide of the mark. She didn’t really even directly swear at him, or show any level of aggression to him personally. She made no threats. She clearly used offensive and unnecessary language, which does need addressing, to make it clear that she could not allow him to proceed contrary to the rules of the car park, as he was trying to do. She isn’t a complete innocent, but the levels of culpability are miles apart.
Mansfield red and Winker wow, slightly odd moral compasses. Winker basically 100% thinks violence is the answer. Mansfield believes it is fine for club employees to use foul and abusive language towards customers including children. No more to be said on that one is there. Only thing the cpa should have done is reported the incident immediately to her supervisor. Not try and escalate the situation.
You clearly defended the actions of the cpa, writing them off as not as serious. They clearly need to apologise and go through the clubs internal policies.
I didn't defend her actions, I just said they aren't nearly as bad as threatening to break someone's ******* nose. Which is true.
Difference being though, they are the face of and ambassadors of the club when on duty. It sets the level of acceptable standards for the behaviour of the fans ultimately. We already had someone on a thread the other day wondering if they will be banned for swearing at someone. If it's ok for club employees, then its acceptable for fans.
Level of how offensive or threatening something is will always be subjective to every individuals personal beliefs.
So you think that someone saying "I don't ******* think so" is as threatening as "I'll break your ******* nose"?
I would'nt say i was in favour of violence, i asked the question, would i av been in the right or wrong for doing what i believe i would av done in that situation,